andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2012 andrew_gelman_stats-2012-1237 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: My new Chance ethics column (cowritten with Eric Loken). Click through and take a look. It’s a short article and I really like it. And here’s more Chance.
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 My new Chance ethics column (cowritten with Eric Loken). [sent-1, score-0.809]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('chance', 0.457), ('loken', 0.439), ('ethics', 0.391), ('eric', 0.35), ('click', 0.326), ('column', 0.308), ('short', 0.237), ('take', 0.157), ('article', 0.119), ('new', 0.11), ('really', 0.103), ('like', 0.067)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0000001 1237 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-30-Statisticians: When We Teach, We Don’t Practice What We Preach
Introduction: My new Chance ethics column (cowritten with Eric Loken). Click through and take a look. It’s a short article and I really like it. And here’s more Chance.
Introduction: I’ve recently started a regular column on ethics, appearing every three months in Chance magazine . My first column, “Open Data and Open Methods,” is here , and my second column, “Statisticians: When we teach, we don’t practice what we preach” (coauthored with Eric Loken) will be appearing in the next issue. Statistical ethics is a wide-open topic, and I’d be very interested in everyone’s thoughts, questions, and stories. I’d like to get beyond generic questions such as, Is it right to do a randomized trial when you think the treatment is probably better than the control?, and I’d also like to avoid the really easy questions such as, Is it ethical to copy Wikipedia entries and then sell the resulting publication for $2800 a year? [Note to people who are sick of hearing about this particular story: I'll consider stopping my blogging on it, the moment that the people involved consider apologizing for their behavior.] Please insert your thoughts, questions, stories, links, et
3 0.24860768 2082 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-30-Berri Gladwell Loken football update
Introduction: Sports researcher Dave Berri had a disagreement with a remark in our recent discussion of Malcolm Gladwell. Berri writes: This post [from Gelman] contains the following paragraph: Similarly, when Gladwell claimed that NFL quarterback performance is unrelated to the order they were drafted out of college, he appears to have been wrong. But if you take his writing as stone soup, maybe it’s valuable: just retreat to the statement that there’s only a weak relationship between draft order and NFL performance. That alone is interesting. It’s too bad that Gladwell sometimes has to make false general statements in order to get our attention, but maybe that’s what is needed to shake people out of their mental complacency. The above paragraph links to a blog post by Eric Loken. This is something you have linked to before. And when you linked to it before I tried to explain why Loken’s work is not very good. Since you still think this work shows that Gladwell – and therefore Rob
4 0.23478088 1238 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-31-Dispute about ethics of data sharing
Introduction: Several months ago, Sam Behseta, the new editor of Chance magazine, asked me if I’d like to have a column. I said yes, I’d like to write on ethics and statistics. My first column was called “Open Data and Open Methods” and I discussed the ethical obligation to share data and make our computations transparent wherever possible. In my column, I recounted a story from a bit over 20 years ago when I noticed a problem in a published analysis (involving electromagnetic fields and calcium flow in chicken brains) and contacted the researcher in charge of the study, who would not share his data with me. Two of the people from that research team—biologist Carl Blackman and statistician Dennis House—saw my Chance column and felt that I had misrepresented the situation and had criticized them unfairly. Blackman and House expressed their concerns in letters to the editor which were just published, along with my reply, in the latest issue of Chance . Seeing as I posted my article here, I
5 0.16945006 1590 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-26-I need a title for my book on ethics and statistics!!
Introduction: “Ethics and Statistics” is descriptive but boring. It sounds like the textbook for a course which, unfortunately, nobody will take. “Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics” is too unoriginal. “How to Lie, Cheat, and Steal With Statistics” is kind of ok, maybe? “Statistical Dilemmas”: maybe a bit too boring as well. “Knaves and Frauds of Statistics, and Some Guys Who’ve Skated a Bit Close to the Edge”: Hmmm…. Maybe we have to get “statistics” out of the title altogether? “Knaves and Frauds of Data Science”? “Date Science and Data Fraud”? “10 Things You Really Really Really Shouldn’t Do With Numbers”? And, if no better idea comes along, there’s always “Evilicious: Why We Evolved a Taste for Being Bad.” (Regular readers will know what I’m talking about here; the rest of you can google it.) Or maybe just “The Wegman Report”? It’s hard to come up with a good title. Even John Updike had difficulties in this regard. If any of you can suggest a better title for my eth
6 0.15542841 2179 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-20-The AAA Tranche of Subprime Science
7 0.14029361 1980 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-13-Test scores and grades predict job performance (but maybe not at Google)
8 0.1374177 1298 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-03-News from the sister blog!
10 0.13041194 1581 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-17-Horrible but harmless?
11 0.1171398 434 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-28-When Small Numbers Lead to Big Errors
13 0.10618054 319 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-04-“Who owns Congress”
14 0.10295773 689 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-01-Is that what she said?
15 0.10229497 1760 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-12-Misunderstanding the p-value
16 0.10165575 1098 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-04-Bayesian Page Rank?
17 0.10086255 389 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-01-Why it can be rational to vote
18 0.10086255 1565 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-06-Why it can be rational to vote
19 0.094291791 253 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-03-Gladwell vs Pinker
20 0.090762928 1807 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-17-Data problems, coding errors…what can be done?
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.065), (1, -0.044), (2, -0.012), (3, 0.011), (4, -0.008), (5, -0.004), (6, 0.01), (7, -0.013), (8, -0.023), (9, -0.035), (10, -0.001), (11, -0.001), (12, 0.002), (13, -0.021), (14, -0.02), (15, 0.038), (16, 0.02), (17, 0.003), (18, 0.019), (19, 0.037), (20, 0.004), (21, 0.053), (22, 0.067), (23, 0.005), (24, -0.018), (25, 0.036), (26, -0.037), (27, 0.014), (28, -0.009), (29, -0.029), (30, 0.048), (31, -0.028), (32, -0.006), (33, 0.017), (34, 0.023), (35, -0.046), (36, 0.046), (37, -0.049), (38, -0.015), (39, -0.038), (40, 0.041), (41, -0.013), (42, 0.052), (43, 0.014), (44, -0.037), (45, 0.048), (46, -0.035), (47, -0.006), (48, 0.006), (49, -0.011)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.9547112 1237 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-30-Statisticians: When We Teach, We Don’t Practice What We Preach
Introduction: My new Chance ethics column (cowritten with Eric Loken). Click through and take a look. It’s a short article and I really like it. And here’s more Chance.
2 0.73251569 1830 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-29-Giving credit where due
Introduction: Gregg Easterbrook may not always be on the ball, but I 100% endorse the last section of his recent column (scroll down to “Absurd Specificity Watch”). Earlier in the column, Easterbrook has a plug for Tim Tebow. I’d forgotten about Tim Tebow.
Introduction: I’ve recently started a regular column on ethics, appearing every three months in Chance magazine . My first column, “Open Data and Open Methods,” is here , and my second column, “Statisticians: When we teach, we don’t practice what we preach” (coauthored with Eric Loken) will be appearing in the next issue. Statistical ethics is a wide-open topic, and I’d be very interested in everyone’s thoughts, questions, and stories. I’d like to get beyond generic questions such as, Is it right to do a randomized trial when you think the treatment is probably better than the control?, and I’d also like to avoid the really easy questions such as, Is it ethical to copy Wikipedia entries and then sell the resulting publication for $2800 a year? [Note to people who are sick of hearing about this particular story: I'll consider stopping my blogging on it, the moment that the people involved consider apologizing for their behavior.] Please insert your thoughts, questions, stories, links, et
4 0.55527139 343 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-15-?
Introduction: How am I supposed to handle this sort of thing? (See below.) I just stuck it one of my email folders without responding, but then I wondered . . . what’s it all about? Is there some sort of Glengarry Glen Ross-like parallel world where down-on-their-luck Jack Lemmons of public relations world send out electronic cold calls? More than anything else, this sort of thing makes me glad I have a steady job. Here’s the (unsolicited) email, which came with the subject line “Please help a reporter do his job”: Dear Andrew, As an Editor for the Bulldog Reporter (www.bulldogreporter.com/dailydog), a media relations trade publication, my job is to help ensure that my readers have accurate info about you and send you the best quality pitches. By taking five minutes or less to answer my questions (pasted below), you’ll receive targeted PR pitches from our client base that will match your beat and interests. Any help or direction is appreciated. Here are my questions. We have you listed
5 0.53539926 966 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-20-A qualified but incomplete thanks to Gregg Easterbrook’s editor at Reuters
Introduction: Dear Reuters editor: Thanks for reading my blog and correcting the erroneous numbers in Easterbrook’s column from the other day. I’m pretty sure you got the corrections from my blog because in your corrections you used the exact same links that I posted. I think your readers will like that you gave links to the sources of your numbers. But I’d appreciate if you cite me! It’s considered polite to credit your sources rather than just copying over numbers and links with no mention of where they came from. Unlike Easterbrook, I’m not expecting to be paid for this material but I’d still like to be thanked. (See the last paragraph of this post by Felix Salmon for more on the desirability of linking to your sources.) Also, since you’re correcting the article anyway, maybe you could go back and change this sentence too: But don’t sell Huntsman short because he is low in the polls – Obama had been at that point, too. As I noted earlier, As of 14 Oct 2011, Gallup gi
6 0.52862304 1872 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-27-More spam!
8 0.52056968 1098 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-04-Bayesian Page Rank?
9 0.52051479 2082 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-30-Berri Gladwell Loken football update
10 0.513834 1306 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-07-Lists of Note and Letters of Note
11 0.51204175 1211 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-13-A personal bit of spam, just for me!
12 0.51121831 169 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-29-Say again?
13 0.51108521 1083 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-26-The quals and the quants
14 0.50661814 1240 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-02-Blogads update
15 0.50525147 1980 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-13-Test scores and grades predict job performance (but maybe not at Google)
16 0.50332898 473 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-17-Why a bonobo won’t play poker with you
17 0.50258988 1012 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-16-Blog bribes!
19 0.49807876 2102 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-15-“Are all significant p-values created equal?”
20 0.49789786 2148 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-25-Spam!
topicId topicWeight
[(16, 0.079), (54, 0.293), (99, 0.39)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.94875026 1237 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-30-Statisticians: When We Teach, We Don’t Practice What We Preach
Introduction: My new Chance ethics column (cowritten with Eric Loken). Click through and take a look. It’s a short article and I really like it. And here’s more Chance.
2 0.87841564 1938 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-14-Learning how to speak
Introduction: I’ve been trying to reduce my American accent when speaking French. I tried taping my voice and playing it back, but that didn’t help. I couldn’t actually tell that I had a strong accent by listening to myself. My own voice is just too familiar to me. Then Malecki told me about the international phonetic alphabet, which is just great. And there’s even a convenient website that translates. For example, le loup est revenu -> lə lu ε ʀəvny I stared at Malecki’s mouth while he said the phrase, and I finally understood the difference between the two different “oo” sounds. That evening at home I tried it out on the local expert and he laughed at my attempts but grudgingly admitted I was getting better. On about the 10th try, after watching him say it over and over and staring at his mouth, I was finally able to do it! I know this is going to sound stupid to all you linguistics experts out there, but I had no idea that you could figure out how to speak better by staring at s
3 0.86972785 2271 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-28-What happened to the world we knew?
Introduction: I was unlocking my bike, with music turned on low, and a couple of high school kids were lounging around nearby. One of them walked over and asked, « Qui est-ce qui chante? ». I responded, “Stevie Wonder” (not trying any accent on this one). The kid said, « Ees good ».
4 0.86752075 358 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-20-When Kerry Met Sally: Politics and Perceptions in the Demand for Movies
Introduction: Jason Roos sends along this article : On election days many of us see a colorful map of the U.S. where each tiny county has a color on the continuum between red and blue. So far we have not used such data to improve the effectiveness of marketing models. In this study, we show that we should. We demonstrate the usefulness of political data via an interesting application–the demand for movies. Using boxoffice data from 25 counties in the U.S. Midwest (21 quarters between 2000 and 2005) we show that by including political data one can improve out-of-sample predictions significantly. Specifically, we estimate the improvement in forecasts due to the addition of political data to be around $43 million per year for the entire U.S. theatrical market. Furthermore, when it comes to movies we depart from previous work in another way. While previous studies have relied on pre-determined movie genres, we estimate perceived movie attributes in a latent space and formulate viewers’ tastes as
5 0.85392082 1676 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-16-Detecting cheating in chess
Introduction: Three different people have pointed me to this post by Ken Regan on statistical evaluation of claims of cheating in chess. So I figured I have to satisfy demand and post something on this. But I have nothing to say. All these topics interest me, but I somehow had difficulty reading through the entire post. I scanned through but what I really wanted to see was some data. Show me a scatterplot, then I’ll get interested. P.S. This is meant as no disparagement of Regan or his blog. I just couldn’t quite get into this particular example.
6 0.85279095 2064 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-16-Test run for G+ hangout for my Bayesian Data Analysis class
7 0.85224605 1843 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-05-The New York Times Book of Mathematics
8 0.85108894 322 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-06-More on the differences between drugs and medical devices
9 0.83442754 867 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-23-The economics of the mac? A paradox of competition
10 0.83314157 1583 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-19-I can’t read this interview with me
11 0.82431102 1889 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-08-Using trends in R-squared to measure progress in criminology??
12 0.81607431 839 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-04-To commenters who are trying to sell something
13 0.81542075 1105 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-08-Econ debate about prices at a fancy restaurant
14 0.80879021 1065 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-17-Read this blog on Google Currents
15 0.80590868 1656 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-05-Understanding regression models and regression coefficients
16 0.8043865 615 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-16-Chess vs. checkers
17 0.80250895 94 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-17-SAT stories
18 0.80230314 1554 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-31-It not necessary that Bayesian methods conform to the likelihood principle
20 0.80024481 2048 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-03-A comment on a post at the Monkey Cage